Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

skeptic2mod 3580

skeptic2mod 3580

Cillizza: Let's start with the lawsuit Daniels filed on Tuesday night. Is there precedent for this sort of suit? Does she have a chance to win and get out of the hush agreement?

Toobin: She does have a chance to win, and her argument is pretty simple. She says she is not bound by the hush agreement -- and its non-disclosure provisions -- because Trump did not sign the agreement. Thus, because all parties did not sign, it's not a valid contract.

Acceptance of this argument might open her to the argument that she should return the money because, as she now argues, she received it pursuant to a non-valid contract. But if a court were to hold that the contract was invalid, she would not be bound by the non-disclosure agreement. There is also a chance that a court might hold that the contract, even if it's technically valid, had provisions that were against public policy -- for example, that the non-disclosure agreement was too onerous or that Michael Cohen had voided it by speaking out on the case.

Cillizza: Where does the lawsuit go from here? Is it possible that Trump would have to submit to discovery of some sort? Or is this simply between the shell company Cohen set up and Daniels?

Toobin: At the moment, Daniels is still barred from speaking because an arbitration judge enforced the non-disclosure provision. But that temporary order will not last very long. At some point, the case will almost certainly go to a Superior Court judge in California. At that point, Trump will have some difficult options. He can argue that the contract is valid -- but that will involve acknowledging that he agreed to pay her the hush money. It might also open Trump up to having to give a deposition.

Forcing Trump to go to court would be a public relations victory for Daniels. But she faces a risk, too. If a court were to uphold the contract, the court could find that she violated the agreement and would have to pay the $1 million award that is called for in the contract as a penalty for breach.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

skeptic2mod 3580

skeptic2mod 3580

I am attempting to speak honestly and openly to the American people about my relationship with now President Donald Trump, as well as the intimidation and tactics that he, together with his attorney Michael Cohen, have used to silence me.

In order to tell my story, I have had to file a public lawsuit in Los Angeles, California in an effort to void a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that Mr. Trump never signed and yet is trying to use to intimidate me.

Rather than agree that the NDA is invalid, thus allowing me to talk, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen have instead attempted to hide the facts from the public using a bogus arbitration proceeding and have threatened me with millions of dollars in damages ($1M each time I speak out) if I tell the truth about what happened.

I recently made an offer to return the $130,000 I was previously paid if it was agreed that I could simply tell the truth publicly. Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen did not even bother to respond.

I need funds to pay for: attorneys' fees; out-of-pocket costs associated with the lawsuit, arbitration, and my right to speak openly; security expenses; and damages that may be awarded against me if I speak out and ultimately lose to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen.

I am more fortunate than many, many people in this country. And for that I am grateful. But unfortunately, I do not have the vast resources to fight Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen alone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

o311mc 254

o311mc 254

funny how all of the sudden a porn star grows ethics and wants to be all June Cleaver like and bust out with the truth. Also funny how Trump paid her to be quiet, pretty obvious what went on here. Not sure who is less trustworthy here.

Share on other sites

Farmer Vincent 7459

Farmer Vincent 7459

The 'we are all sinners' and 'it's between him and god' options kick in if it suits political tribalism. So really in this case Trump is the useful idiot. If he had a D after his name he'd surely be headed to hell.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

grieker 3309

grieker 3309

The 'we are all sinners' and 'it's between him and god' options kick in if it suits political tribalism. So really in this case Trump is the useful idiot. If he had a D after his name he'd surely be headed to hell.

According to Madeline Allwrong - there's a "special place in hell for women..." and she was referring to "D's".

According to Ivanka - there's a special place in hell for Roy Moore - I believe he's an "R".